The main question to ask is: why should anyone care?
Naming conventions are a dime a dozen. It's not like they need to be nonsense, not at all. Every computer library developed from scratch comes up with naming conventions, usage conventions, interface conventions, etc. But precisely because such conventions are quite freely choosable, it creates a cost to use them consistently and this will not happen if there is not a very tangible benefit.
If I have a software library with very extensive, say, parallelization support, then it may make sense to learn the conventions that it imposes on the user. Maybe it even finds a way of expressing things more cleverly than existing models and if that happens, it may ultimately take on. Still, this can take a very long time. Many clever programming paradigms from languages such as Lisp or Haskell took decades to seep into the mainstream. Mind you, these are operational advantages that they confer and yet it was not easily accepted.
Introducing a notation/expressive language that does not fill an obvious niche or confer a distinct advantage is mostly a futile exercise and rarely takes off, independent of its rationality. Perhaps the most interesting such experiment is Esperanto, which is, comparatively spoken, a modest success.
So, your idea may be rational (I cannot judge if it is), it may be even modestly useful (I have no opinion on that), but to get many people to adopt it or even just take it seriously, it needs to provide very tangible and substantial benefits and even then its success may still be decades off.
Unlike a mathematical theorem where there may be few people able to judge its merits or proof, but where there is at least a kind of "objective" importance to the question and reality check to the proof, naming jugglery is often close to crankery in the sense that many self-styled physics "revolutionaries" simply clothe either trivialities or non-committal vague statements with verbal jiu-jitsu which makes them capable of "proving anything" and impossible to falsify. I guess that your idea is also a name game is what may induce some of your critics to consider your idea close to crankery.
Again, I personally do not have an opinion about that, but it's clearly not an idea many people consider important to discuss or advances their own understanding of things.
The fact that 3 out of a hundred profs have stated something positive about your idea, may give some indication that you are trying to cram the idea into a hundred people's throats. Is it really such an important idea? I mean, it's not solving world hunger, cancer or even just determining the nature of Dark Matter or the Hubble constant.
It begins and ends with the one question I mentioned at the beginning: Why should anyone care?